[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers] Re: Help wanted (sysadmin work)

From: Yaroslav Klyukin
Subject: [Savannah-hackers] Re: Help wanted (sysadmin work)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:03:38 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)

Richard Stallman wrote:

    I don't think the project looses a lot of credit because of the name.
    People are still using GNU licenses everywhere.

Most users never think about the GNU GPL.  They talk about the
operating system which is basically GNU, but they call it "Linux".

The GNU GPL is one small part of the work we did to develop the GNU
system.  We need to get credit for the system, not just the license.

Ok. I think I am missing something important here.
How do you distinguish a software that was written by GNU people from the software, that just uses GPL license?
In both cases it will contain GPL license.

Do you differentiate between the two cases?

I always thought that if somebody wrote a piece of code and used GPL license, this software will be called GNU.

    > These cases are not the same.  FreeBSD is basically a different
    > operating system.  It uses a few pieces of GNU, but overall it was
    > developed separately.  It would not be right to call it "GNU/FreeBSD".

    Which parts do you refer to?

As I understand it, FreeBSD uses just a few pieces of GNU software,
such as GCC and a few others.  However, if you want to check this
factually, how about if you make a list of GNU packages which are
standard parts of FreeBSD?

Well, standard parts are very small - just enough to boot the OS.
FreeBSD uses a huge ports collection, which consists of ported applications. Pretty much the same set, which you can encounter in GNU/Linux.

It makes it double difficult to calculate GNU involvement in FreeBSD, because of the misconceptions mentioned above:
1. Can software which uses GPL license be called GNU?
2. Do we count only the base of the OS, or the whole distribution, most of which consists of ports?

What we gain by informing them where the system comes from is that
they will hear more about the GNU project';s philosophy, and will
pay more attention to it when they do hear about it.

Well, if this is the case, I believe more effort should be spent for propoganda. Like graphic banners for instance.

What is the GNU's involvement in legal issues of the license?
For instance, some parties create CDs, which they don't make immidiately available from ftps, and force people to buy GNU/Linux this way. Do you think it's legal?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]